Resources

The court dismissed a challenge to a planning inspector decision granting outline planning permission for up to 350 dwellings. The inspector had not misunderstood a policy of the development plan; he gave adequate reasons for limiting the weight given to a masterplan and had not breached his duty when considering the impact of the development on protected species of bat.BackgroundThis claim challenged a decision of a Planning Inspector to grant of planning permission to Waddeton Park Ltd (“the Second Defendant”) for the demolition of existing buildings and structures and the phased development of up to 350 dwellings, together with associated infrastructure and open space, on land at St Bridget Nursery in Exeter. The Inspector held a local inquiry into the planning appeal on 11 December 2024. In granting planning permission, the Inspector took into account a number of planning obligations contained in a deed of agreement dated 18 December 2024 made under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”), the parties to which were the owners of the appeal site, the Second Defendant as developer, the Third Defendant and Devon County Council.The focus of the claim…

In a construction dispute concerning alleged fire safety defects in student accommodation, the court refused to adjourn the entire trial but ordered a split trial between liability and quantum issues. The Building Safety Regulator rejected the remedial scheme proposed by the claimants, meaning that an adjournment was the only fair way of proceeding, and a split trial was the least imperfect solution to balance fairness with efficient use of court resources.BackgroundThe Claimant/Applicant (“Woodland”) applied to adjourn the trial of this matter, which was listed to start on 8 June 2026, to the first convenient date after 1 June 2027 and for consequential directions. The application was opposed by the First Defendant (“RGCM Limited”) and the Fourth and Fifth Defendants, Unite Modular Solutions Limited (“UMS”) and Unite Integrated Solutions PLC (“UIS”), known as ‘Unite’ collectively. The application was neither supported nor opposed by the Second, Third and Sixth Defendants.Woodland was the owner of a building (“the Development”) in Islington providing student accommodation. The works were carried out through the construction management method of procurement, which involved a…

In CR Construction v Barclays Bank & Or [2026] EWHC 202 (TCC) the Court considered wide ranging arguments in support of an injunction seeking to restrain a call on a Bond by the Employer. The arguments included questions as to the validity of the Bond call, whether the Main Contract (a JCT D&B 2016) in some way precluded a call on the Bond, whether the fact that the Main Contract was allegedly repudiated precluded a call on the Bond and whether set-off also precluded a call on the Bond. The arguments failed and the application was rejected. Sean Wilken KC instructed by Phil Withey and Jake Parker–Bishop at Addleshaw Goddard acted for the Employer on the application.You can read the full judgment here.